Replacement Dealer Superchargers - Solid or Spring Isolator?

[evonschu]

This came up in a separate fb thread. But curious amongst all the peeps here. Of those who have had the dealer replace the supercharger under warranty for the "marbe noise" isolator issue, how many have verifyably gotten a replacement supercharger that did NOT have a solid isolator and had a spring one like the previous supercharger they brought it in with?

When I had mine done they definitely put in a supercharger with a solid isolator, but I'm hearing from others that sometimes they have replaced it with the same type with the spring isolator still. Wanted to gauge how common this was and get any info. Seems dumb that GM would go to all this trouble replacing the SC just to put on one that could just potentially fail again. But then again I've seen stupider things from GM on my vehicles.

Thanks.

[STUNNAH]

I think that they developed a newer version of the spring isolator that they are installing now, and are no longer using the older version...

[1MtnGoat]

The tech who replaced mine said that they (GM) used up all old stock superchargers (spring drive) before switching over to the solid coupling. He told me to wait a while before having the replacement done. My SC was replaced in Feb. of 2014. It has a solid coupler.

[evonschu]

Originally Posted by 1MtnGoat

The tech who replaced mine said that they (GM) used up all old stock superchargers (spring drive) before switching over to the solid coupling. He told me to wait a while before having the replacement done. My SC was replaced in Feb. of 2014. It has a solid coupler.

Wow that's ridiculous. Lets put another bad part in and wait for that to fail...

[ZMEnow]

Originally Posted by 1MtnGoat

The tech who replaced mine said that they (GM) used up all old stock superchargers (spring drive) before switching over to the solid coupling. He told me to wait a while before having the replacement done. My SC was replaced in Feb. of 2014. It has a solid coupler.

That is incorrect, all the very early ones replaced (including mine) were new Eaton SC's with Solid Isolators, after all the caddy's and Z's started asking for them they have apparently just sent out original inventory of Spring Isolators.

New Supercharger Noise TSB 15-06-01-003

#15-06-01-003: Supercharger Noise - (Nov 4, 2015)
Subject: Supercharger Noise


Models: 2009-2014 Cadillac CTS-V
2012-2014 Chevrolet Camaro
Equipped with 6.2L Engine (RPO LSA)

Attention: This Bulletin also applies to any of the above models that may be Export vehicles.

This Bulletin replaces PIP5192B. Please discard PIP5192B.

Condition

Some customers may comment on one or more of the following conditions:

2009-2014 Model Years
Customers may experience a rattling or knocking noise at mid-to-high mileage, especially prominent at idle.
Customers may experience a screeching noise at mid-to-high mileage, usually when cold but not exclusively.

2014 and Newer Model Years
Customers may experience a buzz noise (similar to a heat shield buzz) at a narrow RPM band somewhere between 700—1300 RPM. This noise may be referred to as launch buzz, accessory drive belt resonance.

All Model Years
A light to moderate rattling noise at idle that sounds like marbles in the supercharger, but goes away when engine speed is increased to about 1200 RPM, is normal. This noise does not indicate that there is any problem with the supercharger or that any parts are damaged.

Cause

This may be caused by contamination of the lubricating grease within the supercharger that may cause the bearing to make noise. If this condition exists, and is left unaddressed, the bearing may overheat and cause damage to the supercharger.

Correction

For vehicles that encounter the above concern, follow the correct procedure listed below.

2014 and Newer Model Years
Replace the supercharger front cover. Refer to Supercharger Front Cover Replacement in SI.

2009-2013 Cadillac CTS-V and Chevrolet Camaro (That Have Had A Service Replacement Supercharger Installed After November 2013)
Replace the supercharger front cover. Refer to Supercharger Front Cover Replacement in SI.

Manual Transmission Vehicles The Experience a Flutter or Rattle at Low RPMs
Replace the supercharger front cover. Refer to Supercharger Front Cover Replacement in SI.

Vehicles Built Prior to 2014 (That Have NOT Had A Service Replacement Supercharger Installed After November 2013)
Remove and replace the supercharger. Refer to Supercharger Removal and Supercharger Installation in SI.

Parts Information

Part Number


Description

12613457 - GASKET-CHRG AIR CLR HSG

12612467 - INSULATOR-CHRG AIR CLR LWR

19180613 - GASKET KIT, INT MANIF

12576549 - SEAL, THROT BODY

12670278 - SUPERCHARGER KIT

12670289 - COVER-SPCHG FRT (KIT)

12346290 (US)COOLANT, ENGINE
10953464 (CA)


Warranty Information

For vehicles repaired under warranty, use:

Labor Operation


Description


Labor Time

4068400


Supercharger Front Cover Replacement


Use Published Labor Operation Time

4068410


Supercharger and Gasket Replacement

[BEECHFRONT]

Here is updated tsb #15-06-01-003A: Supercharger Noise –(Dec 22, 2016) 2009-2015 Cadillac & Chevrolet

http://gm.oemdtc.com/5072

[1troyd23]

So question for everybody on this thread. I ordered my ZL1 from the dealer in April of 2015 and took delivery in late June of 2015. Should i be concerned that I have the older parts on my SC ? Or do you think by then , they started to build them with the better parts at the factory ? Thanks in advance !!!

[KaBoom1701]

Originally Posted by 1troyd23

So question for everybody on this thread. I ordered my ZL1 from the dealer in April of 2015 and took delivery in late June of 2015. Should i be concerned that I have the older parts on my SC ? Or do you think by then , they started to build them with the better parts at the factory ? Thanks in advance !!!

You should be fine. Most 13's and older have to worry about this.

[ZO6 Bryan]

Originally Posted by BEECHFRONT

Here is updated tsb #15-06-01-003A: Supercharger Noise –(Dec 22, 2016) 2009-2015 Cadillac & Chevrolet

http://gm.oemdtc.com/5072

I don't see a difference between the two.

[BEECHFRONT]

Originally Posted by ZO6 Bryan

I don't see a difference between the two.

2015 yr was added

[Vicster]

Hello, Mine is a 2013, had the dreaded marble noise after 5000 miles. Supercharger was replaced under warranty before I tore the engine down. The replacement coupler was solid when I opened it up. Sorry, best picture I got of it, but it looks just like the LPE coupler. My supercharger is over driven 31%, I have had no problems and no noise in 6000 miles since the replacement. (found better pic of new GM / Eaton Coupler)

[Samson2029]

resplaced my SC on 2013 zl1 due to marble like noises. had a solid coupler for 2 years and had it replaced again due to buzzing vibration noises. The snout was replaced with the revised spring loaded coupler and am very happy with it. The spring loaded coupler smooths out the engine, manual shifting feels great now and no more vibrations. hope this new coupler survives a long time. This engine works best with a spring loaded coupler.

[BEECHFRONT]

Originally Posted by Samson2029

resplaced my SC on 2013 zl1 due to marble like noises. had a solid coupler for 2 years and had it replaced again due to buzzing vibration noises. The snout was replaced with the revised spring loaded coupler and am very happy with it. The spring loaded coupler smooths out the engine, manual shifting feels great now and no more vibrations. hope this new coupler survives a long time. This engine works best with a spring loaded coupler.

Do you have a part number on the updated spring coupler??

[E. Bryant]

Originally Posted by Samson2029

This engine works best with a spring loaded coupler.

I assure you that Eaton and GM used a sprung isolator for good reasons, and it wasn't just to force an expensive warranty campaign several years later. Now, I'm guessing that part of this was to provide NVH that was satisfactory for a Cadillac and that us Camaro owners may not be as picky (I can't hear much of anything over my exhaust), but this wasn't designed on accident.

I can also say that the isolator that was original used appears totally insufficient for transmitting ~50 HP from the input shaft to the rotor pack, and it's unclear to me how this part could have ever been deemed satisfactory after typical validation testing.